LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Ka Rauf Sherif vs Directorate of Enforcement & Ors.

Transfer Petition (Criminal) · 2023 INSC 347Decided 10 Apr 2023
Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 89 of 2023
V. Ramasubramanian · Pankaj Mithal

Background

The petitioner, formerly General Secretary of the Campus Front of India (later banned as an unlawful association), was named as an accused in a money-laundering case linked to older FIRs about unlawful activities in Kerala. He was arrested in Kerala in December 2020, but the Enforcement Directorate's prosecution complaint against him was filed before the Special PMLA Court in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, far from where he was arrested and where most witnesses and co-accused persons were based (in Kerala/South India). He asked the Supreme Court to transfer the Lucknow trial to a Special Court in Ernakulam, Kerala, arguing the Lucknow court lacked jurisdiction and that most accused and witnesses were from Kerala.

Decision Breakdown

Relying on its own recent precedent (Rana Ayyub vs Directorate of Enforcement), the Court explained that territorial jurisdiction for a money-laundering trial is decided based on where any part of the "process or activity" connected with the laundered money (such as acquisition, possession, concealment, or use of the proceeds) actually took place, not by reference to where the original predicate FIR was filed. Since the ED's complaint alleged relevant money-laundering activity connected to Uttar Pradesh (including funds traced to persons arrested by UP Police), the Lucknow Special Court could not be said to lack jurisdiction. The Court also held that even if a court did technically lack jurisdiction, that alone is not a valid ground for "transfer" (as opposed to other legal remedies), and that the residence of the majority of accused/witnesses in another state is likewise not, by itself, a ground for transfer. It further rejected the argument based on how his initial remand was granted in Kerala, since remand orders under Section 167 Cr.P.C. can validly be passed by a magistrate even without territorial jurisdiction over the eventual trial. The transfer petition was dismissed.

Lesson Learnt

In money-laundering cases, the location of the original predicate offence, or the convenience of having most witnesses or co-accused in another state, does not by itself entitle an accused to have the PMLA trial moved there: jurisdiction follows wherever any part of the laundering activity itself took place.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case